State v. SchultzState v. Schultz
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Connolly
The case before us presents a question of whether the punishment for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, is controlled by
FACTS
Pursuant to a plea agreement, George G. Schultz pled no contest to the crime of fourth-offense DUI. The district court for Platte County sentenced Schultz to an indefinite period of not less than 2 nor more than 3 years’ imprisonment, with credit for 2 days served. In addition, Schultz was fined $500 and had his driver’s license revoked for a period of 15 years. Because Schultz pled no contest to the charge against him, his appeal of the sentence imposed was submitted without argument pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 11E(5) (rev. 1996).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Schultz contends the district court erred in sentencing him to imprisonment for more than 1 year.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Merrill, ante p. 510, 563 N.W.2d 340 (1997); State v. Earl, ante p. 127, 560 N.W.2d 491 (1997).
Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. State v. Emrich, 251 Neb. 540, 557 N.W.2d 674 (1997). See State v. Thieszen, ante p. 208, 560 N.W.2d 800 (1997).
*748 ANALYSIS
Schultz asserts that the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed on one found guilty of fourth-offense DUI is 1 year. The basis of his argument is § 28-107(3), which provides:
A misdemeanor defined by a statute outside this code, the sentence for which exceeds the sentence authorized in this code for a Class I misdemeanor, shall constitute for sentencing purposes a Class I misdemeanor. A person adjudged guilty under such law is deemed to be convicted of a Class I misdemeanor and shall be sentenced for a Class I misdemeanor in accordance with this code.
As Schultz correctly points out, the crime of driving under the influence is defined at
Although the crime of DUI is defined outside the Criminal Code, the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe a specific punishment for the crime, known as a Class W misdemeanor, which is set forth at
We have held that to the extent there is conflict between two statutes on the same subject, the specific statute controls over the general statute.
SID No. 2 v. County of Stanton, ante
p. 731, 567 N.W.2d 115 (1997);
Village of Winside v. Jackson,
250 Neb. 851, 553 N.W.2d 476 (1996). While § 28-107 may, at first glance, appear to set the punishment for DUI, a crime defined outside the Criminal Code, we cannot overlook the clear intention the Legislature set forth at
CONCLUSION
Because Schultz’ conviction for DUI was his fourth, the limitation of the district court’s sentencing ability is set forth at
Affirmed.